About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
, the first appearance was with judge marianne boulder and she was there to review his miranda rights with him, among other things. you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights. there's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give the
be charged as early as today. investigators have not read him his miranda rights unwhat they call the public safety exception clause. so they may use any information he reveals as evidence in court. let's bring in christopher tritico, he defended the oklahoma city bomber, timothy mcveigh. christopher, thanks very much for coming in. he is a u.s. citizen. he was -- he received his naturalized citizenship last september 11th, of all dates. he's obviously in a hospital. crime was committed in the united states. if they don't read him his miranda rights right away, you okay with that? >> well, look. i think the public safety exception is being greatly and overly expanded in this instance. the public safety exception as the supreme court laid out is for an instance when an officer walks up on a situation and sees an empty holster and says where's your gun. that's to prevent an imminent threat from happening right then. what they are doing now is really expanding that public safety exception to say really the fifth amendment applies when they say it does and i don't think the supreme court is goin
be charged as early as today. investigators did not read him his miranda rights when he was captured. they invoked what they call the public safety exception. it permits law enforcement officials to interrogate a suspect and use that information as direct evident in court, and that is causing some controversy out there. let's talk about that. we'll talk about that in a few moments. also want to talk about other issues. joining us, former u.s. attorney doug jones who led the prosecutor against eric ruduffel, the 1996 atlanta olympic bomber. thank you for joining us. first of all, let's talk about this video. this video that has now surfaced that cnn has confirmed, a well known jihadist in dagestan who himself was killed in december, the video was posted on tamerlan tsarnaev's youtube channel. since then, it's been deleted. what does that say, if you're a u.s. attorney investigating this case, what does that say to you? >> well, wolf, i think it would be one of two things. there obviously could be some contact since he traveled over that way. there could have been some contact. there c
in the decision. but they detoured not too far over. >> the decision not to read him his miranda rights even though at one point you see him getting out of the boat, in that picture he is conscience. how did that decision come about? >> this is a federal case involving a terrorism situation and i was not aware that in the federal system there can be a removal or a discontinuation of miranda rights in emergency situations. so that's exactly what happened. the united states attorney's office advised us not to administer miranda rights. we gave that information out to our officers and i think all law enforcement was operating under those rules of engagement. >> back to the apartment real quickly. there were devices found in the apartment but you can't comment on what? >> no, i didn't say that. i can't comment on any evidence that was found there. sglp anything that was found in the apartment. are you confident that these two were acting alone and that there are no more suspects out there? >> i'm confident that they were the two major actors in the violence that occurred. i am very, very sure th
miranda rights. >> >> not not at all. he'll be entitled to his american rights and i think if we don't do that, we become less of ourselves. we are americans. we have beauties in this system. we some problems in the system. i think if we do anything other than embrace what america is all about, then the terrorist would have won and i think that is the absolute wrong thing to do. >> congressman, thanks so much. good to see you. appreciate it. >>> we know now that 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev will face federal terrorism charges and with all the photographs and video, is the case a slam dunk for prosecutors? we'll look into that next. i have low testosterone. there, i said it. how did i know? well, i didn't really. see, i figured low testosterone would decrease my sex drive... but when i started losing energy and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor. we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)